 |
|
|
|
 |
Chris Larkin
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Wiltshire, England
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I guess a flip side of this coin is that it gives minors carte blanche to go out and have all of the unprotected sex they want without having to worry about telling their parents when they truly have a crisis on their hands. Is this a good thing? Why are parents painted to be the bogeyman in all of this when a minor is clearly facing consequences of their indiscretions? IMO, this could backfire in more ways than one.
Furthermore, this decision does nothing to promote more responsible behavior on the part of kids. |
I'm not sure you've entirely understood the way this is seen over here. This is really a case on the idea of patient confidentiality. If you go to a doctor, then you have the certainty that they will not tell anyone else at all, without your permission. With under 16s, things are more tricky because the parent is the legal guardian of the child. What today's case was re-affirming is that an under 16 still has confidentiality over abortions, as with all other cases of consulting medical staff.
I think it's a good decision. Children who have good relationships with parents will still tell them, and those who don't will not face any repercussions they might fear. Therefore, they are more likely to seek help from medical professionals who can help them. It's the same with contraception (although today's ruling did not cover that) - young people can be more confident in seeking advice if they know parents will not find out and disapprove.
It isn't about responsibility on the child's part, it's about relationships between parent and child.
For some more public opinion, try HERE.
|
|
Jan-23-2006 17:42
|
|
|
 |
 |
Shakka
Supreme tranceaddict

Registered: Feb 2003
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Chris Larkin
I'm not sure you've entirely understood the way this is seen over here. This is really a case on the idea of patient confidentiality. If you go to a doctor, then you have the certainty that they will not tell anyone else at all, without your permission. With under 16s, things are more tricky because the parent is the legal guardian of the child. What today's case was re-affirming is that an under 16 still has confidentiality over abortions, as with all other cases of consulting medical staff. |
Well I didn't read the article in its entirety, but that's essentially what I thought it meant.
| quote: | | Children who have good relationships with parents will still tell them, and those who don't will not face any repercussions they might fear. Therefore, they are more likely to seek help from medical professionals who can help them. It's the same with contraception (although today's ruling did not cover that) - young people can be more confident in seeking advice if they know parents will not find out and disapprove. |
But is that any of the government's business? i.e. being able to get in between a parent and their own child, for whom they are the legal guardian to? IMO, no.
| quote: | | It isn't about responsibility on the child's part, it's about relationships between parent and child. |
Indeed. The child was likely quite irresponsible if they got pregnant at 16 in the first place.
|
|
Jan-23-2006 17:51
|
|
|
 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:32.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|